New Sigma 150/600

Tarsiger

Well-known member
Ultimately I guess it boils down to a difference in style. I don't accuse others of things such as get the shot no matter what or calling people idiots like some on have done on this and the Tamron forum. I don't form a full opinion on a lens based on a days use in lousy conditions with no good results to show from it. I also don't buy a lens and then give up on it because I can't get any good images with it and then go and badmouth the lens to others. And I don't post uninteresting, soft and blurry pics to support my claims. Think I will leave all of that to the rest of you.
__________________
Well said😀
Russ
 

micloi

Well-known member
After my, hopefully, helpful posts this is the most constructive thing you could post?

I wonder if it is worth contributing to this thread any more...
 

hosesbroadbill

Well-known member

This shot is not sharp. Are you hand holding the camera? Again, not trying to be rude, just saying what I see.

For instance, here is a shot I got today with the Tamron of the long staying vagrant kingbird.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/15937455948/in/photostream/

and

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/15502558944/in/photostream/

My shots are sharper and have significantly more fine feather detail. The Sigma and an 810 should be producing better results than these. I have to assume that either you have a bad copy or there is some sort of shake involved that is making the images soft.
 

jimthomson

Well-known member
This shot is not sharp. Are you hand holding the camera? Again, not trying to be rude, just saying what I see.

For instance, here is a shot I got today with the Tamron of the long staying vagrant kingbird.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/15937455948/in/photostream/

and

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/15502558944/in/photostream/

My shots are sharper and have significantly more fine feather detail. The Sigma and an 810 should be producing better results than these. I have to assume that either you have a bad copy or there is some sort of shake involved that is making the images soft.
For someone who isn't trying you sure do manage to be rude. The shot was very sharp. Just look at the lichen between the bird,s feet. I could say that your first shot was not sharp because the birds tail was not in focus and the feet are a little blurred. Were you hand holding? Is the Lens too heavy for you? I have to assume that you either have a bad copy or there is some sort of shake involved that is making the images soft. Not trying to be rude
just calling it like I see it.
Have I made my point?
 

micloi

Well-known member
This shot is not sharp. Are you hand holding the camera? Again, not trying to be rude, just saying what I see.

My shots are sharper and have significantly more fine feather detail.

Fantastic, now that we have established that you are not rude and your shots are stellar let's continue my little experiment.

Below is a shot of the same bird a couple of seconds later by a different photographer using the Tamron 150-600mm

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7521/15940859547_544ff0f074_o.jpg

So, according to your logic, one of the lines below should be true:

1. Neither myself or the other photographer can take a sharp photo to save our life

2. Both the Sigma and the Tamron are bad copies

3. There is the, however remote, possibility, that photos of different birds (i.e. a bullfinch and sparrow) that have different feathers, in different conditions and distances, could result in different feather detail so you could maybe stop trying to compare your shots with other people's.

Best regards,

Michael

p.s. over-sharpening the whole photo produces artifacts, most visible in the background of your flickr shots, so you might want to try some selective sharpening to only the bird so that it is not so apparent. Your shots were taken at ISO400 and not 1600 which allowed some excessive sharpening, would not work as 'well' at ISO1600 except if the bird was maybe 3 meters away from you.
 
Last edited:

hosesbroadbill

Well-known member
For someone who isn't trying you sure do manage to be rude. The shot was very sharp. Just look at the lichen between the bird,s feet. I could say that your first shot was not sharp because the birds tail was not in focus and the feet are a little blurred. Were you hand holding? Is the Lens too heavy for you? I have to assume that you either have a bad copy or there is some sort of shake involved that is making the images soft. Not trying to be rude
just calling it like I see it.
Have I made my point?

The lichen is not sharp and neither is the bird. It is not rude to say a shot is blurry. It is a fact about a photo and not a personal attack on the photographer. People really need to understand the difference.

If you know anything about shooting at 600mm then you would know why some of my shot was in focus and some not. The parts that are in focus are much sharper than his photo. This is not a contest nor am I looking for a pat on the back. I am trying to demonstrate a difference in a lens, not the photographers.

And I would love it if I actually had a bad copy of the Tamron as then this lens would be even more amazing and there would be no need for the Sigma or any other option.

The only point that you have made is that you clearly do not see very well and are way too defensive.
 

hosesbroadbill

Well-known member
Fantastic, now that we have established that you are not rude and your shots are stellar let's continue my little experiment.

Below is a shot of the same bird a couple of seconds later by a different photographer using the Tamron 150-600mm

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7521/15940859547_544ff0f074_o.jpg

So, according to your logic, one of the lines below should be true:

1. Neither myself or the other photographer can take a sharp photo to save our life

2. Both the Sigma and the Tamron are bad copies

3. There is the, however remote, possibility, that photos of different birds (i.e. a bullfinch and sparrow) that have different feathers, in different conditions and distances, could result in different feather detail so you could maybe stop trying to compare your shots with other people's.

Best regards,

Michael

p.s. over-sharpening the whole photo produces artifacts, most visible in the background of your flickr shots, so you might want to try some selective sharpening to only the bird so that it is not so apparent. Your shots were taken at ISO400 and not 1600 which allowed some excessive sharpening, would not work as 'well' at ISO1600 except if the bird was maybe 3 meters away from you.

If I am only given those three options then I guess it is options 1 and 2. I have seen loads of shots of bullfinches that are much sharper.

Having an opinion about a photo is not a personal attack on you or your abilities. When you post something to a public forum you should be ready for the fact that people may disagree with you and also have critical things to say about your photos. This is a forum to discuss a lens and it's performance right? It is not to discuss a photographers performance so stop taking it that way.
 

micloi

Well-known member
Your photo seems, a little, sharper as you were closer to the bird and you over sharpened it. As simple as that. I have sharper photos without excessive sharpening with the tamron with birds that were closer. You do not necessarily even need 600mm for that.
 
Last edited:

hosesbroadbill

Well-known member
Your photo seems, a little, sharper as you were closer to the bird and you over sharpened it. As simple as that. I have sharper photos without excessive sharpening with the tamron with birds that were closer. You do not necessarily even need 600mm for that.

Can we see them please.
 

micloi

Well-known member
Wonder if a Kenko 1.4x TC would work with the Siggy 150-600 and a 7D2?

To something more helpful.

My friend tried the Sigma 1.4x MK1 and the Canon 1.4x mkIII on the 7D2

He said that both work, the Canon version autofocuses more quickly (not sure about accuracy though as he did not find any birds in flight to test it with)
 

jimthomson

Well-known member
The lichen is not sharp and neither is the bird. It is not rude to say a shot is blurry. It is a fact about a photo and not a personal attack on the photographer. People really need to understand the difference.

If you know anything about shooting at 600mm then you would know why some of my shot was in focus and some not. The parts that are in focus are much sharper than his photo. This is not a contest nor am I looking for a pat on the back. I am trying to demonstrate a difference in a lens, not the photographers.

And I would love it if I actually had a bad copy of the Tamron as then this lens would be even more amazing and there would be no need for the Sigma or any other option.

The only point that you have made is that you clearly do not see very well and are way too defensive.

I agree, it is not rude to call a shot blurry when it is blurry, but it is rude to call a sharp shot blurry and to suggest that the photographer doesn't know how to hand hold and that there must be something wrong with his lens and camera. It is rude to suggest that a lens is too heavy for the shooter. Actually any time you feel the need to add "don't mean to be rude" You probably are being rude and it just indicates that you know you are being rude.

You say it is not a contest, but you continually criticize the sharpness of other peoples shots and claim yours are better as you did right after you said it was not a contest.

Personally I don't see much difference between the sharpness of your photo's and that posted by micloi. I certainly don't see evidence of motion blur in micloi's picture. And the lichen looks sharp on my screen.


Actually may I suggest that you need to get your monitor checked as from most of your comments only your pictures are ever sharp. Everyone else's are never sharp. Or maybe you should go and see an opthamologist to have your blurry vision fixed.

And as for shooting with a 600mm lens maybe you should try a smaller aperture to get more of the bird in focus.
 

hosesbroadbill

Well-known member
I agree, it is not rude to call a shot blurry when it is blurry, but it is rude to call a sharp shot blurry and to suggest that the photographer doesn't know how to hand hold and that there must be something wrong with his lens and camera. It is rude to suggest that a lens is too heavy for the shooter. Actually any time you feel the need to add "don't mean to be rude" You probably are being rude and it just indicates that you know you are being rude.

You say it is not a contest, but you continually criticize the sharpness of other peoples shots and claim yours are better as you did right after you said it was not a contest.

Personally I don't see much difference between the sharpness of your photo's and that posted by micloi. I certainly don't see evidence of motion blur in micloi's picture. And the lichen looks sharp on my screen.


Actually may I suggest that you need to get your monitor checked as from most of your comments only your pictures are ever sharp. Everyone else's are never sharp. Or maybe you should go and see an opthamologist to have your blurry vision fixed.

And as for shooting with a 600mm lens maybe you should try a smaller aperture to get more of the bird in focus.

His shots were taken with a 36mp full frame camera that has amazing IQ and with a lens that costs twice as much, that I fully expect to be sharper and better than the Tamron. Based on that his shot should not be less sharp but quite a bit more sharp. I have posted a shot from the juza site taken at 6400 ISO with a 610 of a Goldcrest. They are not in the same league of sharpness and IQ as compared to his shot. Therefore I do not agree with nor use as an excuse his claim that my shot was sharper due to the ISO of 400 as compared to his that was higher.

Do you own the Tamron or the Sigma lens Jim? Being one of the first that got the lens I have about as much experience shooting with one of these longs zooms as any. I am fully aware of how hard it is to hand hold the Tamron lens. It is much harder to do for longer periods of time when you are waiting for a bird to fly or turn around or get into a better position for your shot. The Sigma is much heavier and therefore even harder to hold. It is the number one criticism of every review I have read. So it is far from being rude when every review on line mentions the weight as a major issue. Having reviewed thousands of shots that I have taken with the Tamron, I am 100% confident that his shot is not sharp because of motion blur. I have loads of shots that look just like that (mostly good but not as sharp as they could be) and they were all when I moved slightly and were quickly deleted.

Being that this is a forum that others who don't contribute are reading as well I am trying to discern why his shots are not sharper than they should be. We are all trying to get info about a lens. Knowing if he shot these hand held or on a tripod would help determine what caused the lack of sharpness in his shot.

I am not one of those people that thinks that taking pictures is very difficult. Basically I pick up the camera, adjust some settings, hold it steady and press a button. However composition and post processing and most importantly field craft are much harder to learn, and much more important for wildlife photography. I just want to take sharp shots of the birds I so enjoy watching. I really do not have the time or the patience for the rest of this childish name calling that goes on here. You were not there Jim when I was shooting this Kingbird. It was in a community Garden that has rows that you can walk up and down separated by about 30 foot of gardens and fence. The bird was moving around a lot. I took a shot, looked down at my camera to see if it was OK, looked up again and it had landed much much closer to me than where it was. I slowly lifted up camera and got a few shots off before it took off and flew back to its original spot. And how do you know that I wasn't trying to just have the head and body in focus and that is not what I was going for?
 
Last edited:

jimthomson

Well-known member
Do you own the Tamron or the Sigma lens Jim? Being one of the first that got the lens I have about as much experience shooting with one of these longs zooms as any. I am fully aware of how hard it is to hand hold the Tamron lens. It is much harder to do for longer periods of time when you are waiting for a bird to fly or turn around or get into a better position for your shot. The Sigma is much heavier and therefore even harder to hold. It is the number one criticism of every review I have read. So it is far from being rude when every review on line mentions the weight as a major issue. Having reviewed thousands of shots that I have taken with the Tamron, I am 100% confident that his shot is not sharp because of motion blur. I have loads of shots that look just like that (mostly good but not as sharp as they could be) and they were all when I moved slightly and were quickly deleted.

Yes I own a Tamron 150-600mm, it says so right in my signature I've had it since March 18, a couple of weeks longer than you've had yours. I don't use it much for birds as I find the focus speed on the slow side. I much prefer using a prime.

By the way micloi was posting sharp hand held shots with the Tamron on January 18, which is at least two months longer that you have had yours. So he has plenty of experience handholding long zooms. He's also mentioned hand holding a 600 f4, so the weight isn't likely to be an issue for him either.

It's strange that only you thinks that the photo is soft due to motion blur.
 

hosesbroadbill

Well-known member
Yes I own a Tamron 150-600mm, it says so right in my signature I've had it since March 18, a couple of weeks longer than you've had yours. I don't use it much for birds as I find the focus speed on the slow side. I much prefer using a prime.

By the way micloi was posting sharp hand held shots with the Tamron on January 18, which is at least two months longer that you have had yours. So he has plenty of experience handholding long zooms. He's also mentioned hand holding a 600 f4, so the weight isn't likely to be an issue for him either.

It's strange that only you thinks that the photo is soft due to motion blur.

So because he has owned multiple lenses he therefore never takes shots that suffer from motion blur? Is that really what you think? Owned longer = none of your shots suffer from motion blur. I freely admit that a large number of my shots suffer from motion blur when trying to shoot small fast moving birds, but I guess he is perfect and rock solid on every shot. Makes sense. :t:

Once again, another finger pointing post that has nothing to do with a lens. There really is little to nothing of value to be gotten here unless you like finger pointing and defending soft images. And clearly we have different ideas of what sharp means when it comes to a photo.
 

njlarsen

Well-known member
Opus Editor
So exactly for that reason, each of you need to consider: was this post really necessary?

Niels
 

hosesbroadbill

Well-known member
So exactly for that reason, each of you need to consider: was this post really necessary?

Niels

I would be happy to have a civil conversation about the performance of a lens and how it compares to its direct competition. Problem is that many members on this forum seem to think it is ok to sling accusations and insults. They also seem to think that having an opinion on a photo is a personal attack. Not sure how to accomplish things when this is the type of hostility that I am consistently met with.
 
Top